Milutinović Dragana, Andrijević Ilija, Ličina Milijana, Andrijević Ljiljana
University of Novi Sad; Faculty of Medicine; Department of Nursing, Serbia.
University of Novi Sad; Faculty of Medicine; Department of Nursing, Serbia ; The Institute for Pulmonary Diseases of Vojvodina, Sremska Kamenica, Serbia.
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Oct 15;25(3):401-9. doi: 10.11613/BM.2015.040. eCollection 2015.
This study aimed to assess confidence level of healthcare professionals in venipuncture and their knowledge on the possible causes of in vitro hemolysis.
A sample of 94 healthcare professionals (nurses and laboratory technicians) participated in this survey study. A four-section questionnaire was used as a research instrument comprising general information for research participants, knowledge on possible causes of in vitro hemolysis due to type of material used and venipuncture technique and specimen handling, as well as assessment of healthcare professionals' confidence level in their own ability to perform first and last venipuncture.
The average score on the knowledge test was higher in nurses' than in laboratory technicians (8.11±1.7, and 7.4±1.5, respectively). The difference in average scores was statistically significant (P=0.035) and Cohen's d in the range of 0.4 indicates that there is a moderate difference on the knowledge test among the health care workers. Only 11/94 of healthcare professionals recognized that blood sample collection from cannula and evacuated tube is method which contributes most to the occurrence of in vitro hemolysis, whereas most risk factors affecting occurrence of in vitro hemolysis during venipuncture were recognized. There were no significant differences in mean score on the knowledge test in relation to the confidence level in venipuncture (P=0.551).
Confidence level at last venipuncture among both profiles of healthcare staff was very high, but they showed insufficient knowledge about possible factors affecting hemolysis due to materials used in venipuncture compared with factors due to venipuncture technique and handling of blood sample.
本研究旨在评估医护人员静脉穿刺的信心水平以及他们对体外溶血可能原因的了解。
94名医护人员（护士和实验室技术员）参与了这项调查研究。一份包含四个部分的问卷被用作研究工具，内容包括研究参与者的一般信息、关于因所用材料类型、静脉穿刺技术和标本处理导致体外溶血可能原因的知识，以及对医护人员自身进行首次和末次静脉穿刺能力的信心水平评估。
护士在知识测试中的平均得分高于实验室技术员（分别为8.11±1.7和7.4±1.5）。平均得分的差异具有统计学意义（P = 0.035），科恩d值在0.4范围内表明医护人员在知识测试上存在中等差异。只有11/94的医护人员认识到从套管和真空采血管采集血样是最易导致体外溶血的方法，而大多数静脉穿刺过程中影响体外溶血发生的风险因素都被识别出来了。在知识测试的平均得分与静脉穿刺信心水平之间没有显著差异（P = 0.551）。
两类医护人员在末次静脉穿刺时的信心水平都非常高，但与静脉穿刺技术和血样处理因素相比，他们对静脉穿刺所用材料影响溶血的可能因素了解不足。
